"“Some foreigners do not respect the traffic laws; they drink alcohol, get drunk, yell, have arguments, and are fighting each other at restaurants and in public places.”

I'm sure many Chinese felt the same way in previous centuries and the Thais in the 60's and 70's R&R invasions?.

But of course the ameristani, British, German, French ......... had such "acceptable" morals to bring with them, opium for silver, souls for a Christian God and baguettes ......... backed up with shiny battleships with 12" guns or the more impressive, at slaughtering the sword wielding defenders, Gatling guns?

The world turns every day, some adapt and prosper others hanker after to old quiet life. Should SE Asia be kept in a bottle purely for the amazingly affluent NA and EU citizens to holiday, to be fed, fucked and photographed whilst shooting the wildlife and infecting the women?

Are the nouveaux riche Chinese any more uncouth than the brits on their Spanish fortnight or the ameristani's seeing the sights of Old Europe on a $ a day?

The Brits, Europeans, ameristanis and ME Sheiks have been worldwide "buying/bullying/bombarding xxxx one bit at a time".

The Chinese developing, building, investing but recently no bombardments. An improvement in my eyes.

Or a ¥ investment/bet/bank balance, not the same as $/£/€ investment/bet/bank balance. Ask the casino owners and their investors, the new company employees, the politicians be they Cambodian or Chinese.

You need to move on from Einstein's description of Asians.

OhOh, you've done it again However, I reiterate. Why, do you persist with casting your "pearls" (from the deep), before the obvious s-------d? ..........Some unique level of entertainment, you've discovered, eh?

Most here see it as my personal entertainment, some believe in fairy-tales, others are certainly not amused that there are alternatives to their chosen beliefs. Me, I'm just happy I've found another very comfortable place, to hang my hat.

Too may years submitting to the norms of one civilisation. Now it's, "bukra inshallah", to use my now encompassing attitude. Picked from a previous place of abode. Which here, appears to have been adopted for centuries.

The United States will assert freedom of navigation in the South China Sea despite recent warnings issued by China on foreign ships and planes passing through the hotly disputed area, a top defense official said Thursday.

U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asian and Pacific Security Affairs Randall Schriver said Beijing’s growing aggressiveness would not deter the U.S. from exercising the right to peacefully pass through the region.

“We’ll fly, sail and operate where international law allows,” Shriver told a select group of reporters in Manila. “So we’ve seen an increase in this kind of challenge from China, not only directed at us but to others, and we think we need to be consistent and the Chinese need to understand that this kind of challenge will not result in a change of our behavior.”
He said Washington would not allow Beijing to bully other nations by rewriting international law.

His statement came after the Philippine Daily Inquirer reported Philippine aircraft have a specific response from similar Chinese challenges.

Gen. Carlito Galvez Jr., chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), said the Chinese warnings are a daily occurrence.

“Our pilots just [reply]: We are just doing our routine flight on our jurisdiction and territory,” he said, according to the Inquirer.

A BBC reporter who witnessed the Chinese aggression said the warnings to Philippine aircraft were less courteous than similar warnings to U.S. planes.

The Philippines and China have overlapping claims in the potentially mineral rich region, as do Brunei, Malaysia, Vietnam and Taiwan.

Flashpoint

The South China Sea is considered a flashpoint in the region and while claimants agreed to desist from any actions that would complicate the matter, China has been expanding and militarizing territories it occupies.

During an annual meeting of Southeast Asian diplomats held in Singapore two weeks ago, officials announced China had agreed to a draft of a “code of conduct” to govern actions in the area after three months of negotiations that ended in June. The agreement was hailed as a breakthrough even as diplomats expressed cautious optimism.

Clearly, China wants to expand its control of the sea region by its warnings even as he said it “has no impact or effect” on how the U.S. operates, Shriver said on Thursday.

He said last week’s flight that carried a CNN crew was part of “routine operations in the South China Sea.”

“I think there should be no misunderstanding or lack of clarity on the spirit and the nature of our commitment,” Shriver said, alluding to the Philippine-US mutual defense treaty of 1951.

“We’ll be a good ally, and we’ll help the Philippines respond accordingly,” he said.

The United States will assert freedom of navigation in the South China Sea despite recent warnings issued by China on foreign ships and planes passing through the hotly disputed area, a top defense official said Thursday.

U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asian and Pacific Security Affairs Randall Schriver said Beijing’s growing aggressiveness would not deter the U.S. from exercising the right to peacefully pass through the region.

“We’ll fly, sail and operate where international law allows,” Shriver told a select group of reporters in Manila. “So we’ve seen an increase in this kind of challenge from China, not only directed at us but to others, and we think we need to be consistent and the Chinese need to understand that this kind of challenge will not result in a change of our behavior.”
He said Washington would not allow Beijing to bully other nations by rewriting international law.

"International law" allows a country to defence it's land, it's sea and it's subsea, out to internationally agreed distances.

If anybody approaches any country, close too or within those areas, a ship, plane or message will be sent to the intruder. China, currently, is sending radio messages to anyone approaching or inside there sovereign areas. The last time anyone did that the ameristani plane was shot down. Is ameristan trying to start another fight?

Originally Posted by misskit

During an annual meeting of Southeast Asian diplomats held in Singapore two weeks ago, officials announced China had agreed to a draft of a “code of conduct” to govern actions in the area after three months of negotiations that ended in June. The agreement was hailed as a breakthrough even as diplomats expressed cautious optimism.

Fake news or did they miss-print?

What was announced was this, by the meeting chairman, Vivian Balakrishnan, the foreign minister of Singapore:

"“I am pleased to announce yet another milestone in the COC (code of conduct) process,” said Vivian Balakrishnan, the foreign minister of Singapore, who is hosting the meeting of regional leaders and lawmakers from around the world in the city-state.

He said the “single draft COC negotiating text”, agreed at high-level talks in June but only announced on Thursday, would serve as the basis for negotiations.

His Chinese counterpart, Wang Yi, called the working text “good news” and “great progress”.

Not just China but all of the 10 ASEAN countries have finally agreed on a TEXT FOR NEGOTIATION to be the final agreed version. That said the Chinese Foreign Minister suggested is good news and great progress. No other named minister made a comment, according Reuters.

Originally Posted by misskit

“I think there should be no misunderstanding or lack of clarity on the spirit and the nature of our commitment,” Shriver said, alluding to the Philippine-US mutual defense treaty of 1951.

“We’ll be a good ally, and we’ll help the Philippines respond accordingly,” he said.

ameristan will continue to exploit Philippines and disallow any others to interfere with their business. Keeping the vassal country theirs alone.

Note that the foreign ministers of Russia, Japan and New Zealand also at the meeting did not sign the agreement.

3 points in your posted propaganda article.

1. China is working and abiding by to "international law".
2. Your article is wrong regarding what was agreed.
3. ameristan is assuming it will be asked to intervene, in a possible military adventure, to which it has no legal rights.

Since you are a good Communist, here is something you forgot or are not allowed to post from the above:

Critics say the consensus approach to negotiations on the code could mean a final deal is still years off and works in China’s favor as a delaying tactic to ease scrutiny of its militarization of man-made islands in the region.

Ever heard of a critical voice from China ? Yes once.... and now in jail

(Reuters) - China expressed anger on Thursday after a British Royal Navy warship sailed close to islands claimed by China in the South China Sea late last month, saying Britain was engaged in “provocation” and that it had lodged a strong complaint.

The HMS Albion, a 22,000 ton amphibious warship carrying a contingent of Royal Marines, passed by the Paracel Islands in recent days, two sources, who were familiar with the matter but who asked not to be identified, told Reuters.

The Albion was on its way to Ho Chi Minh City, where it docked on Monday following a deployment in and around Japan.

One of the sources said Beijing dispatched a frigate and two helicopters to challenge the British vessel, but both sides remained calm during the encounter.

The other source the Albion did not enter the territorial seas around any features in the hotly disputed region but demonstrated that Britain does not recognise excessive maritime claims around the Paracel Islands. Twelve nautical miles is an internationally recognised territorial limit.

The Paracels are occupied entirely by China but also claimed by Vietnam and Taiwan.

China’s Foreign Ministry, in a faxed statement sent to Reuters, said the ship had entered Chinese territorial waters around the Paracel Islands on Aug. 31 without permission, and the Chinese navy had warned them to leave.

“The relevant actions by the British ship violated Chinese law and relevant international law, and infringed on China’s sovereignty. China strongly opposes this and has lodged stern representations with the British side to express strong dissatisfaction,” the ministry added.

“China strongly urges the British side to immediately stop such provocative actions, to avoid harming the broader picture of bilateral relations and regional peace and stability,” it said.

There appears to be two version of the story in the same Reuters article.

Option 1.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

the Albiondid not enter the territorial seas around any features

If the UK warship did not enter any of the islands 12 mile territorial waters, according to your "other source The Albion", quoted by Reuters, the Chinese paid a courtesy visit to fellow sailors. It was a sunny day and it's a known fact that many UK warships engines overheat, so best to be on hand, just in case a typhoon crops up.

Option 2.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

China’s Foreign Ministry,in a faxed statement sent to Reuters, said the shiphad entered Chinese territorial waters

If the UK warship did enter the islands 12 mile territorial waters, according to your, as yet unpublished, "Chinese Foreign Ministry fax", quoted by Reuters, the Chinese paid a courtesy visit to fellow sailors. It was a sunny day and it's a known fact that many UK warships engines overheat, so best to be on hand, just in case a typhoon crops up.

Were there two UK ships, The Albion and it's unnamed, virtual, stealthy, ocean going, Klingon tug?

Did one enter and the other not enter Chinese territorial sea/waters - (I am presuming they, sea/waters, are the same)?

Which should we believe and which is fake?

Is Reuters hoping it's readers are illiterate or are fooled by saying seas and waters?

Why waste precious bodily fluids when this can be the only outcome, 'arry?

Originally Posted by Klondyke

^No, it does not. Similarly, as exempted from jurisdiction of ICJ as it had happened:

The International Court does not enjoy a full separation of powers, with permanent members of the Security Council being able to veto enforcement of cases, even those to which they consented to be bound.[45] Because the jurisdiction does not have binding force itself, in many cases, the instances of aggression are adjudicated by Security Council by adopting a resolution, etc. There is, therefore, a likelihood for the permanent member states of Security Council to avoid the responsibility brought up by International Court of Justice, as shown in the example of Nicaragua v. United States.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intern...urt_of_Justice

"Properly known as the International Court of Justice, it is the top U.N. judicial tribunal, but no major power (including the U.S.) is yet willing to bind itself unconditionally to accept the court's decisions."

"Properly known as the International Court of Justice, it is the top U.N. judicial tribunal, but no major power (including the U.S.) is yet willing to bind itself unconditionally to accept the court's decisions."

The "bigger" you are referring too took steps decades ago to improve their citizens lot. Hence they are now able to defend themselves and their sovereignty. Others chose to become vassals and continue to reap their chaf instead of their due grain.

The "bigger" you are referring too took steps decades ago to improve their citizens lot. Hence they are now able to defend themselves and their sovereignty. Others chose to become vassals and continue to reap their chaf instead of their due grain.

Step 1:

Sending out their citizens to rob as much intellectual property as they could so that they could knock off anything they fancied, then use the ill gotten gains to lure countries into debt and then rob them of their natural resources.